SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-19
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 07,2013

SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) PRESENT application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 242/2003, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, arising out of case crime No. 177/2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 I.P.C. It is also prayed that the cognizance order, as also the charge sheet submitted thereof be also quashed. Informant -respondent No. 3 filed an F.I.R. against the accused persons including the applicant on 7.10.2012 in P.S. Bahadrabad, Haridwar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 177/12, under Sections 420, and 506 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 IPC. Cognizance on the same was taken by learned Magistrate on 02.04.2013. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused -applicant.
(2.) TAKING recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint against the accused persons, including the applicant in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. It was said that the respondent No. 3 and the accused persons, including the applicant, entered into an agreement on 02.11.2004 in respect of a chunk of land, situated at Hari Parwat Merry Land, Haridwar. It was agreed on 02.11.2004 that the same will be got registered on 25.12.2004. Respondent No. 3 gave a payment of rupees 50,00,000/ - to the accused persons at the time of agreement. A sum of rupees one crore twenty five lacs was also given by the respondent No. 3 to the accused persons through bank draft and cash on subsequent dates, before the date of registry. In all, a sum of rupees one crore seventy five lacs was given by the respondent No. 3 to the accused persons. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, came to know that the accused persons were not the owners of the land in respect of Which they entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3. A part of the said land belonged to someone else. The accused persons had no right to sell the said land. The accused persons continued to postpone the registry on one pretext or another. No sale deed was executed despite several requests made by the respondent No. 3 in this behalf. Accused persons, knowing it fully well that they have entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent No. 3, sold the land to the third person, whereas they had no right to do so. They concealed and suppressed the material facts. When respondent No. 3 made a complaint to them, then a settlement deed was executed between the respondent No. 3 and the applicant on 13.05.2010. It was agreed between the parties that the applicant will pay rupees three crores fifty lacs to the respondent No. 3 within six months, ailing which the respondent No. 3 will pay rupees fifty lacs to the applicant and get the sale deed executed in his favour within one month after the expiry of six months. The respondent No. 3 remained present before Sub - Registrar, Haridwar on 13 -12 -2010 along with money (Rupees Fifty Lacs) but the accused applicant did not come to the Sub - Registrar's office. Had respondent No. 3 come to know of evil design in the minds of the accused persons, he would not have paid rupees one crore seventy five lacs to the accused persons, who committed fraud with the respondent No. 3. Neither did they execute sale -deed, nor paid rupees three crore fifty lacs as per settlement deed. The respondent No. 3 again made a complaint to the applicant on 19.06.2012 at 4.00 PM, on which, the accused -applicant got annoyed and threatened him with dire consequences. A complaint was given to S.O., Kotwali Haridwar on 20.06.2012, but no action was taken on the same. Respondent No. 3 made a complaint to S.S.P. Haridwar on 29.06.2012, but still no action was taken against the accused persons. He was, therefore compelled to move application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention to this court towards the deed of settlement (dated 13.05.2010), receipt dated 26.11.2004, agreement dated 26 -11 -2004 entered into between the parties, the copy of sale deed whereby the land was sold to Parag Gupta, the certified copy of the judgment rendered by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Haridwar on 28.05.2013, copy of the plaint filed on behalf of applicant in original suit No. 167/2012 filed before learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar and submitted, among other things, that the dispute between the parties is predominately of civil nature, the F.I.R.(was lodged by the respondent No. 3 to pressurise the applicant to execute the sale deed, the same is filed with ulterior motive, non -encumbrance certificate was obtained by the applicant to show that he was the owner of the land, the F.I.R. was lodged after two years of execution of settlement deed, whereas the settlement deed was executed on 13.05.2010, the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.10.2012, Parag Gupta and Sachin Gupta (respondent No. 3) were closely associated with each other, the applicant owed civil liability, if any, the F.I.R. was nothing but a pressure tactics to get the agreement and sale -deed executed, and therefore this court should intervene and quash the F.I.R. He also prayed that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the investigation revealed that Sheesa Singh was dead. There could not be power of attorney of a dead man. The sale deed was executed through the power of attorney of a dead man. There was ex -parte mutation. The accused persons knew that they were not the owners of the land, in respect of which they entered into agreement to sell, and hence, the criminal intention on the part of accused persons was on the fore from the very beginning. According to learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the applicant should be asked to go before the Magistrate concerned and face trial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.